This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Melomel's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Melomel

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, though. Yeah, there's nothing particularly special about our star, and even if there were, then of course it would be such that we could develop here. We did, after all, develop here.

There's a much more effective argument that's similar that has to do with the various constants in the universe allowing baryonic matter to exist in such a way that planets and stars can form in the first place.

The weak anthropic principle has a much more difficult time answering that one unless there are multiple "universes" with different constants - you need more than one monkey to make the case for shakespeare being no big deal.

Mind you, I doubt very much that a monotheist-style invisible friend is the correct answer to the question of, "why does the universe support us," but it is a much more difficult question than anything involving just our sun.

Thu, 22 May 2008 15:11:00 UTC | #174386